http://amiresque.blogspot.com/p/about-me.html

Dec 6, 2014

Visual Effects in Under the Skin

*This piece was originally published at The Film Experience as part of the Team FYC Series, in which the website's contributors make a case for an under the radar candidate for Oscar nomination.

"Generally speaking, if you drop the adjective Best and replace it with Most, you come to a better understanding of what the Academy Awards are often about.”

That statement is taken from Nick Davis’ review of The Lives of Others written
several years ago, but it’s a sentiment I have not only shared, but
have come to recognize as the defining element of my relationship with
the Oscars, responsible for the bulk of my disagreements with their
choices. Nick called the application of his theory to the visual effects
category “self-explanatory” and it’s hard to disagree with him. How
often do we find nominees in this category that subtly work their visual
effects into the narrative? Filmmakers who employ effects as a
storytelling device rather than a show-stopping juggernaut of colors and
flying objects? This isn’t to say that some worthy work hasn’t been
rewarded in the process. No one can argue with the impressive quality of
what is on display in Gravity, but the emphasis is on “on
display.” Visual effects in Cuaron’s films are equivalent to an oiled up
body in a tight thong, flexing muscles in your face, and that type of
“most” visual effects is what the Academy has come to reward repeatedly,
even when the results aren’t quite as impressive or innovative, which
brings me to this year.

None of the films that are bound to be nominated in this category
will have imagery that is as iconic or memorable as the understated work
in Under the Skin. Yet, Jonathan Glazer’s masterpiece – his
third from three tries – faces two very big hurdles on its road to
nomination. First, the film isn’t in the Academy’s wheelhouse or likely
to get any other nominations. Second, that the visual effects aren’t showy. In the words of its VFX supervisor, Dominic Parker, the techniques “are supporting the film, not the main event.”

Technically, Under the Skin isn’t doing anything that
Kubrick didn’t do fifty years ago; one particular sequence – the
disintegration of one of Alien’s preys, which is the only colourful
segment in the film – unmistakably mirrors the colored vortex sequence
in 2001: A Space Odyssey. But the application, completely at
the service of the story and actively designed to go unnoticed, is what
makes the experience memorable.

The plain black void in which the alien’s victims, lit in blue hues,
float endlessly until their moment of implosion is the year’s most
terrifying, unshakable imagery. The sense of inescapable horror that
these sequences create is precisely due to their sleek emptiness.
Similarly, the emotional gravity of the final moment, a literal
stripping to bare the soul, or lack thereof, is conveyed with such
weight because of the simplicity of the non-obstructive effects. Still,
one need not look further than the film’s opening "creation" scene to
see the genius of the effects. Glazer and his team trimmed down the
concept of this scene from the formation of a full human body to just
the eye and ended up with sheer minimalist brilliance. The gradual,
shocking revelation of what it is we’re witnessing is the most wondrous
sensation in the film, a moment of genuinely awe-inspiring quality.
Here’s hoping Academy voters take note.